Alternatives to Home Server

K

KarsusTG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
3,298
So my digital hoarding has been catching up with me. I used to have a home server running microsoft home server 2011 that I really liked but it seems microsoft has discontinued it. As I come closer to placing my 8th and 9th HDD drive in my PC I find myself quickly in need of a server storage solution. What are my options?

I am not willing to pay >$200 for a license for home use as that is just ridiculous.

Samba?

A lot of Cross Platform use (android, Windows 8.1, 7, Debian, and remote access)
 
I can second freenas and maybe add Plex server plugin. only issue is that you might have to upgrade your ram to ecc.
 
ButchCassidy said:
I can second freenas and maybe add Plex server plugin. only issue is that you might have to upgrade your ram to ecc.
Click to expand...

That's been something I have been looking at. I have time to work it out as I want to wait until after the holidays before I go purchasing anything.
 
I switched from using Windows Home Server to just using a Windows 8.1. It's not a bad "upgrade" path for most people.

If you want to be future-proof, get a Synology SAN and connect it to an Intel NUC running Windows or Linux using iSCSI. You should be set...
 
The difficulty I had transitioning from WHS to something else (I just use a Synology unit now) was migrating data. Are you intending to reuse your drives? WHS uses something funky for its drive spanning.
 
I tried to get away.

But in the end nothing beats a Server 2012 R2 with all the goodies.
 
Liger88 said:
FreeNAS gets my vote.
Click to expand...
+1, but can be a tough sell to "do it right". A proper build with ECC, the capacity burnt on parity disks, etc. gets expensive and not being able to mix disk sizes efficiently nor 'easily' expand pools turns people off. It is the most rock-solid approach to storage though (ZFS, specifically).

It comes down to how serious OP is about the protection of his digital hoarding. If less serious, there's tonnes of other great options.
 
DouglasteR said:
I tried to get away.

But in the end nothing beats a Server 2012 R2 with all the goodies.
Click to expand...

Excuse me but what exactly to you do with it?

I can not find any scenario for a home server that a simple linux server wouldn't excel in.
 
B00nie said:
Excuse me but what exactly to you do with it?

I can not find any scenario for a home server that a simple linux server wouldn't excel in.
Click to expand...
A simple Linux server does an exceptionally poor job of serving files to Windows clients. Lots of missing functionality.

The lack of a complete SMB 3.x implementation for Linux seriously nerfs things right off the bat. You'll also run into issues with file system permissions not matching up 1:1.
No current Linux SMB implementation has indexing, so doing something simple like running a search on a share involves spinning up all the associated disks rather than just searching the index. This puts more wear and tear on the disks while also making searches slower.
The lack of a indexing prevents Windows clients from adding network shares on a Linux file server to the OS's libraries. If you keep your music collection on your home server, this can be VERY annoying.
If you want to use Hyper-V (since it's built into client editions of Windows 8.x now), you can't run virtual machines from a Linux file server. Hyper-V requires SMB 3.x for accessing virtual machines stored on network shares.

The list goes on and on... If you're on a network that's primarily Windows boxes, it's a much better idea to connect your Linux-based storage array to a Windows box over iSCSI, then go ahead and create the file system and shares from Windows.
 
You can configure Samba shares as libraries in Windows clients, I'm doing it right now from Windows 7 and have my music library on a Samba share hosted on CentOS 6.6.

Windows Explorer will prevent you from doing it for unknown reasons, but the library subsystem supports it fine. For pictures, video and music you can configure libraries from inside Windows Media Player which will not enforce the same restrictions as Windows Explorer.

Documents is a little harder, but you can edit the documents.library-ms.xml by hand and add any location you like and the OS will accept it.
 
devman said:
You can configure Samba shares as libraries in Windows clients, I'm doing it right now from Windows 7 and have my music library on a Samba share hosted on CentOS 6.6.
Click to expand...
There are ways to force non-indexed locations into libraries, but that auto-disables most of a libraries' functionality. Kinda worthless.

devman said:
Windows Explorer will prevent you from doing it for unknown reasons, but the library subsystem supports it fine.
Click to expand...
It prevents you from doing it because most features associated with libraries require indexing, which isn't provided by Samba shares, because Samba doesn't offer a complete SMB 3.x implementation. For example you can't open the Music library and reflow the folder structure by artist / album / track / ID3 tag if you've forced a non-indexed location into it.

As mentioned previously, searching is also nerfed without indexing. Can't search without spinning up all the disks associated with the share. Searches must enumerate the file system OVER THE NETWORK rather than simply sending a query to SMB running on the server and allowing it to return appropriate results from its pre-generated database. This means extra wear and tear on your hardware AND it wastes network bandwidth AND search results aren't as complete.

devman said:
Documents is a little harder, but you can edit the documents.library-ms.xml by hand and add any location you like and the OS will accept it.
Click to expand...
Same problem, you lose the ability to use indexed search.

This is an even worse problem for documents, because the index actually saves metadata and document contents (allowing you to search for terms INSIDE of documents, right form Explorer). This functionality all goes missing when you use Linux as the host of the file share.

Indexing was added to SMB in 2006 (almost 9 years ago). Still waiting on Linux to catch up...
 
Last edited:
Unknown-One said:
There are ways to force non-indexed locations into libraries, but that auto-disables most of a libraries' functionality. Kinda worthless.


It prevents you from doing it because most features associated with libraries require indexing, which isn't provided by Samba shares, because Samba doesn't offer a complete SMB 3.x implementation. For example you can't open the Music library and reflow the folder structure by artist / album / track / ID3 tag if you've forced a non-indexed location into it.
Click to expand...

Can't say I browse my music that often with Windows Explorer, but searching and sorting works fine in WMP over Samba.

I honestly don't find indexing as crucial to the every day operation of my home network as you do, which is fine, different use cases for different people. The only reason I setup the libraries was so that the start menu links work correctly, non-indexed search works, and default save locations work nicely. Indexing isn't something I care about and isn't a feature I want to pay for, both in terms of monetary costs and loss of access to other features I want.
 
Windows Server 2008 R2 is pretty cheap these days, especially with Plex Server running on it.
I used to run UnRaid + Plex Server, which was really nice, but.... I find myself needing more speed. UnRaid is great for space / size, but.... really lacking in throughput.
 
devman said:
Can't say I browse my music that often with Windows Explorer, but searching and sorting works fine in WMP over Samba.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work as it should.

Windows Media Player keeps its own internal database (separate from the Windows one). Adding a non-indexed location to the Music library and forcing Windows Media Player to index it means enumerating every single file over the network, on EVERY machine you want to browse that from, to build a local database over-and-over.

SMB 3.0? Can just query the database on the server hosting the files. Done-deal. Access is instant, and the database is server side. No need for every machine to churn through your entire music library.

devman said:
I honestly don't find indexing as crucial to the every day operation of my home network as you do, which is fine, different use cases for different people.
Click to expand...
Most modern Windows networking features are degraded without indexing, so yeah, kinda important if most of the machines accessing your file server are Windows boxes...

devman said:
Indexing isn't something I care about and isn't a feature I want to pay for, both in terms of monetary costs and loss of access to other features I want.
Click to expand...
That seems fairly backwards. You're generating more network traffic, you have slower network browsing, slower searching, less-complete search results, and every additional machine that accesses the shares just multiplies all of these issues...

Even (fully-patched and up-to-date) copy of Windows XP supports indexing (as soon as the Windows Search Service is updated to version 4.0). You want to tell me you're happy with a file server that has file-sharing capabilities that are inferior to Windows XP?


I really can't, in good conscience, recommend a Linux-based file server for a network that is primarily made-up of Windows boxes. It just doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
elleana said:
The difficulty I had transitioning from WHS to something else (I just use a Synology unit now) was migrating data. Are you intending to reuse your drives? WHS uses something funky for its drive spanning.
Click to expand...

Ya, I am going to reuse the drives I have now and add a few more. I gave the old server and drives away so starting from scratch at the moment. I currently have 4x2tb and 2x3tb hdd's that are full or very near it.

I am about to buy a couple more 3tb hdd's to hold me over and when I start up this server I think I will probably buy either 4x3tb or 2x6tb so I can start getting some redundancy and expansion room going.

I need to be able to add HDD's as needed. I don't want to be limited to only adding HDD's of the same size/brand/etc.
 
KarsusTG said:
I need to be able to add HDD's as needed. I don't want to be limited to only adding HDD's of the same size/brand/etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this makes me think a Synology or a Drobo connected to a PC is going to be your best bet. You can just slap in an additional disk whenever you need more space.

The storage will "just work" regardless of the OS on the PC.
 
Well it seems that Unknown One is doing a lot of work and configuration and software purchases to do something your average iTunes does automatically for you lol. I never had to worry about music libraries or artist sorting, my MBP does everything for me and I never laid a thought on it.

I really thought that people used home servers to just store files and stuff. I do all my file sharing also on OSX side where my time machine 2Tb backup disk doubles as my network storage. Granted, THAT can be annoyingly slow to spool up when you happen to need it max once a day.
 
KarsusTG said:
Ya, I am going to reuse the drives I have now and add a few more. I gave the old server and drives away so starting from scratch at the moment. I currently have 4x2tb and 2x3tb hdd's that are full or very near it.

I am about to buy a couple more 3tb hdd's to hold me over and when I start up this server I think I will probably buy either 4x3tb or 2x6tb so I can start getting some redundancy and expansion room going.

I need to be able to add HDD's as needed. I don't want to be limited to only adding HDD's of the same size/brand/etc.
Click to expand...
Another option to look at are FlexRAID or SnapRAID. Windows 8.1's storage spaces is something to look at as well.
B00nie said:
Well it seems that Unknown One is doing a lot of work and configuration and software purchases to do something your average iTunes does automatically for you lol. I never had to worry about music libraries or artist sorting, my MBP does everything for me and I never laid a thought on it.

I really thought that people used home servers to just store files and stuff. I do all my file sharing also on OSX side where my time machine 2Tb backup disk doubles as my network storage. Granted, THAT can be annoyingly slow to spool up when you happen to need it max once a day.
Click to expand...

Well not everyone likes to use MacOSX for any number of excellent and valid reasons.
 
FreeNAS or Openfiler if you still want to run a full PC.

You could also get a dedicated NAS from someplace like Synology or QNap. A 4+ bay model will probably cost $300-400 though.
 
B00nie said:
Well it seems that Unknown One is doing a lot of work and configuration and software purchases to do something your average iTunes does automatically for you lol. I never had to worry about music libraries or artist sorting, my MBP does everything for me and I never laid a thought on it.
Click to expand...
What extra work am I doing, exactly? I put my music on a small file server running Windows, and I access it from my desktop running Windows. It's all handled automatically (Windows automatically indexes any shared folders), meaning you don't even need iTunes to browse via databased metadata. Can just use the search box (or a library view) from within Windows Explorer.

Seriously, that's even less work than dealing with iTunes... I'm doing no extra work, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about..

All the previous verbiage was me explaining what happens when you use a machine that DOESN'T support SMB 3.0 for your file server. It degrades networking in a number of ways. All that automatic stuff stops either stops working or gets a LOT slower.
 
Unknown-One said:
What extra work am I doing, exactly? I put my music on a small file server running Windows, and I access it from my desktop running Windows. It's all handled automatically (Windows automatically indexes any shared folders), meaning you don't even need iTunes to browse via databased metadata. Can just use the search box (or a library view) from within Windows Explorer.

Seriously, that's even less work than dealing with iTunes... I'm doing no extra work, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about..

All the previous verbiage was me explaining what happens when you use a machine that DOESN'T support SMB 3.0 for your file server. It degrades networking in a number of ways. All that automatic stuff stops either stops working or gets a LOT slower.
Click to expand...

Uh, installing windows home server, paying for it, getting the hardware for it... seems a helluva lot of work and needless cost to me! I have several macs that get my music library automatically cloud synced through itunes and all I had to do was log in the thing. Not even a thought required.
 
Unknown-One said:
It doesn't work as it should.

Windows Media Player keeps its own internal database (separate from the Windows one). Adding a non-indexed location to the Music library and forcing Windows Media Player to index it means enumerating every single file over the network, on EVERY machine you want to browse that from, to build a local database over-and-over.

SMB 3.0? Can just query the database on the server hosting the files. Done-deal. Access is instant, and the database is server side. No need for every machine to churn through your entire music library.
Click to expand...

WMP builds the library once, it will search directories for updates other times it will do directory linting for updates. While that would be faster with indexing, it isn't exactly slow without it on modern file systems.

Unknown-One said:
Most modern Windows networking features are degraded without indexing, so yeah, kinda important if most of the machines accessing your file server are Windows boxes...


That seems fairly backwards. You're generating more network traffic, you have slower network browsing, slower searching, less-complete search results, and every additional machine that accesses the shares just multiplies all of these issues...

Even (fully-patched and up-to-date) copy of Windows XP supports indexing (as soon as the Windows Search Service is updated to version 4.0). You want to tell me you're happy with a file server that has file-sharing capabilities that are inferior to Windows XP?


I really can't, in good conscience, recommend a Linux-based file server for a network that is primarily made-up of Windows boxes. It just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

You're overstating the degradation. WSS is not a killer app for network file sharing the rest of the non-Windows world gets along fine without it. At most, I'd agree that it makes searching a SMB share from a Windows client slower, but that isn't very compelling (to me).
 
Last edited:
Unknown-One said:
A simple Linux server does an exceptionally poor job of serving files to Windows clients. Lots of missing functionality.

The lack of a complete SMB 3.x implementation for Linux seriously nerfs things right off the bat. You'll also run into issues with file system permissions not matching up 1:1.
No current Linux SMB implementation has indexing, so doing something simple like running a search on a share involves spinning up all the associated disks rather than just searching the index. This puts more wear and tear on the disks while also making searches slower.
The lack of a indexing prevents Windows clients from adding network shares on a Linux file server to the OS's libraries. If you keep your music collection on your home server, this can be VERY annoying.
If you want to use Hyper-V (since it's built into client editions of Windows 8.x now), you can't run virtual machines from a Linux file server. Hyper-V requires SMB 3.x for accessing virtual machines stored on network shares.

The list goes on and on... If you're on a network that's primarily Windows boxes, it's a much better idea to connect your Linux-based storage array to a Windows box over iSCSI, then go ahead and create the file system and shares from Windows.
Click to expand...

The permissions things piss me off. I run an ESXI all in one and use Napp-It. The shares permissions "sometimes" works and sometimes does not. Been toying with the idea of moving to Server 2012 R2 but I have a whole data share I'd have to copy over, and I'm not familiar with creating hyper-v servers or managing them.

Or I could create a server 2012 R2 VM on ESXI....

Or....
 
B00nie said:
Uh, installing windows home server, paying for it, getting the hardware for it... seems a helluva lot of work and needless cost to me!
Click to expand...
Learn to read, please. I suggested just going with Windows 8.1 (since Windows Home Server is a dead-end). Windows 8.1 will fill most of the same roles, so if you can handle losing one or two features, it's a cheap side-grade that has an upgrade path.

In an all-windows environment, paying for Windows for your file server shouldn't come as a surprise.

You'll need hardware either way. If you want a Windows file share, it needs hardware to run on. If you want a local iTunes AirPlay server, it needs hardware to run on. None of your points here are valid...
B00nie said:
I have several macs that get my music library automatically cloud synced through itunes and all I had to do was log in the thing. Not even a thought required.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about cloud storage? We're talking about local file servers, cloud storage is a TOTALLY different topic that does not apply to ANYTHING in this thread. I could just as easily say "lol, get a OneDrive and you wont have to worry about a file server", and it would be just as invalid as suggesting iTunes cloud sync...

devman said:
WMP builds the library once, it will search directories for updates other times it will do directory linting for updates. While that would be faster with indexing, it isn't exactly slow without it on modern file systems.
Click to expand...
Like I said, WMP will build its library once PER-COMPUTER without SMB 3.0

With SMB 3.0, the entire library gets indexed once by the server hosting the files.
Without SMB 3.0, the entire library gets indexed once by every machine that you point at it.

Without SMB 3.0, updates require trawling the file system over the network rather than just getting a small database update. Why would you choose the massively inferior setup?

devman said:
At most, I'd agree that it makes searching a SMB share from a Windows client slower, but that isn't very compelling (to me).
Click to expand...
Slower, more bandwidth-intensive, harder on the server hardware, AND the results that are returned aren't as complete (because you can't search file content effectively without an index).

Again, why choose the inferior option? If you have an all-Windows environment, why skimp on the file server that ties your entire house together?

Konowl said:
The permissions things piss me off. I run an ESXI all in one and use Napp-It. The shares permissions "sometimes" works and sometimes does not. Been toying with the idea of moving to Server 2012 R2 but I have a whole data share I'd have to copy over, and I'm not familiar with creating hyper-v servers or managing them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mentioned permissions being easier to get right with a Windows server.

If you're considering Hyper-V, remember what I said earlier. Hyper-V will only run virtual machines hosted locally (this includes iSCIS), or from fully-compliant SMB 3.x network shares. A Linux file server will not play nice with Hyper-V either.
 
Last edited:
Unknown-One said:
Learn to read, please. I suggested just going with Windows 8.1 (since Windows Home Server is a dead-end). Windows 8.1 will fill most of the same roles, so if you can handle losing one or two features, it's a cheap side-grade that has an upgrade path.

In an all-windows environment, paying for Windows for your file server shouldn't come as a surprise.
Click to expand...

Actually I have been gobsmacked to find out even a single WHS license has been sold.

You'll need hardware either way. If you want a Windows file share, it needs hardware to run on. If you want a local iTunes AirPlay server, it needs hardware to run on. None of your points here are valid...
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Airplay works from multiple devices that are multi purpose. No need to purchase or build servers. Mind you the topic WAS WHS not 8.1 that you suggested! I wondered what WHS was good for.

Who said anything about cloud storage? We're talking about local file servers, cloud storage is a TOTALLY different topic that does not apply to ANYTHING in this thread. I could just as easily say "lol, get a OneDrive and you wont have to worry about a file server", and it would be just as invalid as suggesting iTunes cloud sync...
Click to expand...

I was not aware that just by getting Onedrive all your music is automatically stored there and shared through different devices. Microsoft must be upping their play!

As mentioned Airplay works from my iMac or MBP or Airport Express or iPad etc. So I really do not need any other hardware than what I got for other purposes already and I don't need to configure anything.
 
acascianelli said:
FreeNAS or Openfiler if you still want to run a full PC.

You could also get a dedicated NAS from someplace like Synology or QNap. A 4+ bay model will probably cost $300-400 though.
Click to expand...

The problem is I need like a 10+ bay hehe. My last rig was in a 4U Norco case with 24 drive bay capability. I had I think 15-16HDD's in it. Debating on going that route but it's pretty expensive if you cant find a good used system for cheap.
 
B00nie said:
Actually I have been gobsmacked to find out even a single WHS license has been sold.
Click to expand...
I bought the original WHS as the drive bender feature was pretty damn awesome to me at the time.

KarsusTG said:
The problem is I need like a 10+ bay hehe. My last rig was in a 4U Norco case with 24 drive bay capability. I had I think 15-16HDD's in it. Debating on going that route but it's pretty expensive if you cant find a good used system for cheap.
Click to expand...
But if you go that route, you kinda don't have to really do much in terms of upgrades in the future. Just add drives. ;)

Might as well throw this in: Really should reconsider your stance on ZFS:
http://arstechnica.com/information-...-and-atomic-cows-inside-next-gen-filesystems/
 
I just use Windows 7 + Mezzmo for my digital streaming needs.

Samba is bad for video streaming and Server OS's offer nothing I need.

Also Mezzmo custom playlist make it way better then Plex.
 
Unknown-One said:
A simple Linux server does an exceptionally poor job of serving files to Windows clients. Lots of missing functionality.

The lack of a complete SMB 3.x implementation for Linux seriously nerfs things right off the bat. You'll also run into issues with file system permissions not matching up 1:1.
No current Linux SMB implementation has indexing, so doing something simple like running a search on a share involves spinning up all the associated disks rather than just searching the index. This puts more wear and tear on the disks while also making searches slower.
The lack of a indexing prevents Windows clients from adding network shares on a Linux file server to the OS's libraries. If you keep your music collection on your home server, this can be VERY annoying.
If you want to use Hyper-V (since it's built into client editions of Windows 8.x now), you can't run virtual machines from a Linux file server. Hyper-V requires SMB 3.x for accessing virtual machines stored on network shares.

The list goes on and on... If you're on a network that's primarily Windows boxes, it's a much better idea to connect your Linux-based storage array to a Windows box over iSCSI, then go ahead and create the file system and shares from Windows.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I even bechmarked NFS/CIFS against SMB 3.0 and the latter was reeeeallly fast.
 
DouglasteR said:
Exactly.

I even bechmarked NFS/CIFS against SMB 3.0 and the latter was reeeeallly fast.
Click to expand...

What is meant by a "proper" SMB 3.0 share?

I'm seriously considering going the Server 2012 R2 route. However, I'd want to use the Storage Spaces feature but have not heard overly positive things about the speed with that either.

I'd also like to find a way to share my OneDrive as a network share - I do it in Windows 7 now, but it only synchs when it first launches (using symbolic links to a network share) and I had to write a script to reboot the onedrive client once a day. Was thinking about just creating a WIndows 8 VM to share the OneDrive folders out using File and Printer sharing, but that's a conversation for another day.
 
Konowl said:
What is meant by a "proper" SMB 3.0 share?

I'm seriously considering going the Server 2012 R2 route. However, I'd want to use the Storage Spaces feature but have not heard overly positive things about the speed with that either.

I'd also like to find a way to share my OneDrive as a network share - I do it in Windows 7 now, but it only synchs when it first launches (using symbolic links to a network share) and I had to write a script to reboot the onedrive client once a day. Was thinking about just creating a WIndows 8 VM to share the OneDrive folders out using File and Printer sharing, but that's a conversation for another day.
Click to expand...

Its the best server i ever had (home server).

Its rock solid, really fast and just works.

I cant give any feedback about storage spaces because i use a hardware raid solution (Lsi + 8x1tb in raid 0, yes i know im crazy, but they are well cooled, ups´d and in a 0 vibrations case [lianlipcv2000b], but of course i have another two backup methods (external HD and online encrypted for the must never lost stuff), but in my job i have lots of servers, some using SS and everything is fine.

I´ve tried to do a ZFS machine, but ECC ram here in my country is almost non-existent :(
 
I´ve tried to do a ZFS machine, but ECC ram here in my country is almost non-existen
Click to expand...

Then do not use ECC. Although there is a whole lot of FUD about this it's absolutely not a requirement. Just make sure you have working ram (just like any other filesystem).
 
B00nie said:
Actually I have been gobsmacked to find out even a single WHS license has been sold.
Click to expand...
HP actually had a very popular line of small home servers for a while. They came pre-loaded with Windows Home Server.

B00nie said:
Not exactly. Airplay works from multiple devices that are multi purpose. No need to purchase or build servers
Click to expand...
We're talking about local storage solutions. That music (along with all the other files a person might have) has to be stored SOMEWHERE, and this thread is discussing storing it on a centralized home file server.

AirPlay isn't even close to a valid comparable.

B00nie said:
Mind you the topic WAS WHS not 8.1 that you suggested!
Click to expand...
I know that the original poster is using WHS, I'm suggesting Windows 8.1 as a replacement (since there are no future versions of WHS planned). I've told you this multiple times now...

B00nie said:
I was not aware that just by getting Onedrive all your music is automatically stored there and shared through different devices. Microsoft must be upping their play!
Click to expand...
If we're talking about local music files, as long as you've put them in a folder on OneDrive, they'd be available from any device that's signed into the associated Microsoft account.

If we're talking about music purchased through Xbox Music or Zune, that's also avaiable directly from the cloud on any device that's signed into the associated Microsoft account.

But, like I said before, NONE OF THIS is relevant to the thread. We're discussing local storage servers, not cloud hosting.

B00nie said:
As mentioned Airplay works from my iMac or MBP or Airport Express or iPad etc. So I really do not need any other hardware than what I got for other purposes already and I don't need to configure anything.
Click to expand...
And that's still totally irrelevant and unhelpful to the topic at hand: local file storage of multiple file types.
 
Personally, I am running Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard with Essentials role, which is basically WHS.
 
I really like the Synology systems but I can't seem to get past the price.

DS2413 would be my target system, but it's $1647.

Alternatively: Waaay overkill system.

MOBO $79
CPU $109
ECC Memory $163
Video $70
Raid Card $44 x2

Plenty of money left over for OS, case, and PS.

So in a system like this it seems I have a lot of options.
 
Dangman said:
That's your definition of overkill? It looks like a very cheapy system to me. Mainly due to the controller cards though.
Click to expand...

I thought you cant get proper controller cards for less than 150 bucks a piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top